Subscribe to this blog

Follow by Email

Wired for Music

Music has a bizarre power to engage and affect us – to move us emotionally or literally, whether it’s foot-tapping, finger-drumming or booty-shaking.It seems to have properties that make it automatically and powerfully salient for human beings.An obvious question is whether this reflects some innate properties of the human brain or whether it emerges over time due to experience with types of music.Put another way, does the brain shape the music or the other way around?Does music show particular structures because those are inherently salient and pleasant to humans or is this reaction caused by the brain’s tendency to specialise in processing stimuli that occur with some statistical regularity in its environment?

A new study by Perani and colleagues demonstrates very convincingly that the human newborn brain already shows strong functional specialisation for music processing.By performing functional magnetic resonance imaging on newborns, all under 3 days old, they found a strongly lateralized pattern of activations in response to music.These responses were much stronger in the right hemisphere, as is observed in adult humans.

More interestingly, they found that modifications to the music, which introduced infrequent key shifts or dissonance through shifting one component a half-tone higher, resulted in a very different response pattern.This type of altered music did not engage the right hemisphere network as efficiently as the original music, and did engage regions in the left hemisphere that were not responsive to the original music.Thus, the right hemisphere auditory network is not just specialized for music, it is specialized for music with the appropriate structure (consonance) which most listeners agree is most pleasant.

Previous studies have shown that the left hemisphere is preferentially activated by language stimuli even in newborn infants.The authors speculate that there may be a general division of labour between the two hemispheres, with the left more specialized for processing temporal characteristics of stimuli and the right for processing spectral characteristics (including frequency or pitch).Interestingly, the right hemisphere is also involved in processing prosody – the melodic components of natural speech – modulations in emphasis and inflection that communicate emotional content and tone.It seems likely that the apparent specialisation “for” music reflects the fact that these circuits are pre-tuned to be most responsive to stimuli with specific acoustic characteristics.We did not evolve to enjoy music – music evolved (or was actively designed) to best stimulate our natural preferences.

Newborns thus arrive in the world pre-wired to process different types of acoustic stimuli in specialized circuits, localized to either hemisphere, one for detecting and distinguishing sequences of sounds in time and the other for decoding oscillatory components of the stimuli, including tone, pitch, timbre, rhythm, etc.How this specialisation arises during development is a fascinating topic, and one that is poorly understood.The mechanisms underlying the initial establishment of left-right differences in early embryos are fairly well-established but how these affect the developmental programmes in the brain is far less clear, though a number of genes have been found that are differentially expressed in the two hemispheres of developing human brains (see Sun et al, below).

The fact that functional lateralisation depends upon a genetic programme also suggests that variation in the responsible genes might lead to differences in the degree or direction of lateralisation in different people.This is known to occur for language lateralisation (which can vary with handedness, itself under genetic influence).Lateralisation is also known to be affected in a range of psychatric disorders, most notably schizophrenia.How the kinds of mutations that result in these disorders affect lateralisation and how this contributes to psychiatric symptoms are important questions for the future.

Does the data suggest that there are genetic differences among individuals with regard to musical aptitude? It seems so to me, but am I reading something into it that's not there? Thanks for a very interesting article!

EAV Pro Audio stock a wide range of PA Speakers and PA Systems, Mixing desk, Power Amplifiers, audio interfaces, Wireless microphones and wired microphones along with a massive range of home and professional recording equipment.

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Can molecular memories of our ancestors’
experiences affect our own behaviour and physiology? That idea has certainly
grabbed hold of the public imagination, under the banner of the seemingly
ubiquitous buzzword “epigenetics”. Transgenerational epigenetic inheritance is
the idea that a person’s experiences can somehow mark their genomes in ways
that are passed on to their children and grandchildren. Those marks on the
genome are then thought to influence gene expression and affect the behaviour
and physiology of people who inherit them. The way this notion is referred to – both in
popular pieces and in the scientific literature – you’d be forgiven for
thinking it is an established fact in humans, based on mountains of consistent,
compelling evidence. In fact, the opposite is true – it is based on the
flimsiest of evidence from a very small number of studies with very small
sample sizes and serious methodological flaws. [Note that there is, by contrast,
very good evidence for this kind…

I recently wrote a blogpost examining the
supposed evidence for transgenerational epigenetic inheritance (TGEI) in
humans. This focused specifically on a set of studies commonly cited as
convincingly demonstrating the phenomenon whereby the experiences of one
generation can have effects that are transmitted, through non-genetic means, to
their offspring, and, more importantly, even to their grandchildren. Having
examined what I considered to be the most prominent papers making these claims,
I concluded that they do not in fact provide any evidence supporting that idea,
as they are riddled with fatal methodological flaws. While the scope of that piece was limited
to studies in humans, I have also previously considered animal studies making
similar claims, which suffer from similar methodological flaws (here and here).
My overall conclusion is that there is effectively no evidence for TGEI in
humans (contrary to widespread belief) and very little in mammals more
generally (with one very…

GWAS (genome-wide association studies) for
psychiatric illnesses may be about to become a victim of their own success. The
idea behind these studies is that common genetic variation – ancient mutations
that segregate in the population – may partly underlie the high heritability of
common psychiatric and neurological disorders, such as schizophrenia, autism,
epilepsy, ADHD, depression, and so on. The accumulating evidence from over ten
years of GWAS strongly supports that idea, with many hundreds of such risk
variants now having been identified. The problem is it’s not at all clear what
to do with that information. GWAS are a method to carry out a kind of
genetic epidemiology, based on a simple premise – if a particular genetic
variant at some position in the genome (say an “A” base, as opposed to a “T” at position 236,456 on chromosome 9) – is associated with an increased risk
of some condition, then the frequency of the “A” version should be higher in
people with the condition than pe…